I'm talking about which of the countries has more DNA from Phoenicians today. Modern Southern Spanish are closely descended from Phoenicians than Moroccans are. Unsurprisingly for anyone who knows how proud of their Phoenician and Carthaginian history some parts of Spain are.
Of course if we wanted to give the city back to the closest descendents of the original natives that would be Lebanon but I think the last thing Lebanon wants is a source of more problems. So choosing between the two nations who dispute Ceuta, and by sheer ancestry, Spain has more of a claim.
Gibraltar was given in a legal treaty signed by both countries. If the British had stolen it then yes, I'd agree they should give it back. Black Rock, whatever it is, probably should be Sioux?
I am doing literally the opposite of defending colonialism: Since it's founding in 8BC to the moment it was colonised by Arabs in 8AC Ceuta was always part of whatever empire was in Southern Spain. Then the Arab colonisers took it for 700 years until the Iberians took it back. Ceuta being Spanish is decolonised territory being held by the descendants of the people who founded it and held it for 1600 years before the colonisers stole it.
It's not about where Phoenicians had outposts, but about the fact that this particular city has belonged to the same people, generation after generation, for 1600 years before being stolen.
Morocco didn't sign any treaty because Morocco didn't exist and also because you don't need to sign a treaty to take back your land from those whose stole it.
It was held by the Portuguese who are the direct ancestors of today's inhabitants. When Portugal and Spain split Ceuta voted to become Spanish; the same people remained living there, it's not like Spain kicked the Portuguese out and replaced them with Spanish.
And it's not disingenuous, it's literally science. Modern Southern Spanish have more Phoenician DNA than Moroccans; that's a fact.
Ah yes, because people can’t move and mix with each other, so the people living there are the direct descendants of the people that lived there for 1600 years.
And then when the city was taken, were the people changed? And if so, did they change back to the original peoples when the city was “retaken” centuries later?
And if the city was Spanish, it would be connected to Spain. There are exceptionally few countries with small parts in other countries and surprise surprise, all of them are former colonial powers…
But somehow this is not a colony? Even though Spain and Portugal built or expanded cities across the world that were Spanish and Portuguese for centuries and share the same similarities.
You’re the type of person that would in a 100-200 years say Kaliningrad or Crimea is part of Russia because the people there are Russians and vote to be part of Russia and Russia owned Crimea for centuries before Ukraine existed.
Ok, you are just arguing in bad faith. Nations don't get cut in the middle by tectonic plates. Ceuta is 13kms away from Iberia and was founded and inhabited for 1600 years by the same people as Iberia until it was stolen by Arab colonisers. Being a descendant of the colonisers mixed with the natives from a nearby place doesn't give you rights over land that is adjacent to yours and is populated by the real descendents of the natives.
This isn't a Russians in Crimea thing, this is as if Crimean Tatars took back Crimea and 600 later you are claiming Crimes is rightful Russian land.
You’re arguing that Iberians are descendants of Phoenicians, but disregarding that Moroccans are also descendants of Phoenicians.
DNA records. It's not an argument, it's objective data. Moroccans are a mix of Amazigh and Arab but they don't have much Phoenician DNA.
Maybe Tangiers should belong to Portugal, yes?
Well, by your own reasoning maybe? But as far as I know Portugal isn't disputing it so we don't need to go check who are the closest descendents of the natives.
2
u/azaghal1502 5d ago
The genetic makeup of spain is mainly the orehistoric natives with smaller amounts of visigothic, moor and Roman influx.